| Message ID | 20190627210209.32600-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | bcc61569997b2188ba89db43b5b991da01ea2d18 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [V4,1/3] cpufreq: Move the IS_ENABLED(CPU_THERMAL) macro in a stub | expand |
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:02 PM Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: > > The cpufreq_online and the cpufreq_offline [un]register the driver as > a cooling device. This is done if the driver is flagged as a cooling > device in addition with a IS_ENABLED macro to compile out the branching > code. > > Group this test in a stub function added in the cpufreq header instead > of having the IS_ENABLED in the code path. > > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> This one has been queued up for 5.3 already, no need to resend. Thanks! > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ++---- > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 6 ++++++ > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 85ff958e01f1..aee024e42618 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1378,8 +1378,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) > if (cpufreq_driver->ready) > cpufreq_driver->ready(policy); > > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) && > - cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV) > + if (cpufreq_thermal_control_enabled(cpufreq_driver)) > policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy); > > pr_debug("initialization complete\n"); > @@ -1469,8 +1468,7 @@ static int cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu) > goto unlock; > } > > - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) && > - cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV) { > + if (cpufreq_thermal_control_enabled(cpufreq_driver)) { > cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy->cdev); > policy->cdev = NULL; > } > diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > index d01a74fbc4db..a1467aa7f58b 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h > +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > @@ -409,6 +409,12 @@ int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data); > const char *cpufreq_get_current_driver(void); > void *cpufreq_get_driver_data(void); > > +static inline int cpufreq_thermal_control_enabled(struct cpufreq_driver *drv) > +{ > + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) && > + (drv->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV); > +} > + > static inline void cpufreq_verify_within_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > unsigned int min, unsigned int max) > { > -- > 2.17.1 >
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:58 AM Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 28/06/2019 11:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:02 PM Daniel Lezcano > > <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> Currently the function cpufreq_cooling_register() returns a cooling > >> device pointer which is used back as a pointer to call the function > >> cpufreq_cooling_unregister(). Even if it is correct, it would make > >> sense to not leak the structure inside a cpufreq driver and keep the > >> code thermal code self-encapsulate. Moreover, that forces to add an > >> extra variable in each driver using this function. > >> > >> Instead of passing the cooling device to unregister, pass the policy. > >> > >> Because the cpufreq_cooling_unregister() function uses the policy to > >> unregister itself. The only purpose of the cooling device pointer is > >> to unregister the cpu cooling device. > >> > >> As there is no more need of this pointer, remove it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > >> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > This doesn't apply for me. > > > > Care to rebase it on top of the Linus' tree? > > Sure but the patch depends on 1/3 which is in bleeding edge. Shall I > rebase the 3 patches on v5.2-rc6 and resend ? You can do that. Alternatively, you can rebase on top of my linux-next branch.
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 85ff958e01f1..aee024e42618 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1378,8 +1378,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) if (cpufreq_driver->ready) cpufreq_driver->ready(policy); - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) && - cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV) + if (cpufreq_thermal_control_enabled(cpufreq_driver)) policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy); pr_debug("initialization complete\n"); @@ -1469,8 +1468,7 @@ static int cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu) goto unlock; } - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) && - cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV) { + if (cpufreq_thermal_control_enabled(cpufreq_driver)) { cpufreq_cooling_unregister(policy->cdev); policy->cdev = NULL; } diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h index d01a74fbc4db..a1467aa7f58b 100644 --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h @@ -409,6 +409,12 @@ int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data); const char *cpufreq_get_current_driver(void); void *cpufreq_get_driver_data(void); +static inline int cpufreq_thermal_control_enabled(struct cpufreq_driver *drv) +{ + return IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL) && + (drv->flags & CPUFREQ_IS_COOLING_DEV); +} + static inline void cpufreq_verify_within_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int min, unsigned int max) {